This appeal is from the denial of defendant's motion for summary
judgment. The plaintiff sued for injuries sustained when she
fell while walking from defendant's store down a gradually
sloping, ramp type concrete walkway running from the
outside of defendant's store to its parking lot. The
plaintiff had just previously entered defendant's store on the
same ramp. She testified that when entering and exiting on the
ramp she observed no water, grease, soil or other foreign substances
on the ramp; that as she was not looking down at her feet when
traversing the ramp, she did not see any depression in the rampway;
she was wearing sandals with a "small" heel. After her
fall and when she had recovered from her injuries, she returned
to the defendant's store and noticed that in the area where
she fell the concrete was "uneven"; and that this unevenness is
clearly visible if one was looking down at his feet. She testified
that her fall occurred at about 1:30 p.m. on a "sunshiny" day,
and that there was nothing present to obstruct her view.
Immediately following her fall, plaintiff's husband came to her
aid and he also testified that the weather was clear and
dry and also he saw no water or foreign substance of any kind on the ramp.

Held:

Plaintiff urges that
Chotas v. J.P. Allen & Co.,
113 Ga. App. 731 (149 S.E.2d 527)
sustains the ruling of the trial court denying defendant's
motion for summary judgment. The
Chotas
case dealt with injuries resulting from defects which, though
patent, were not readily apparent even on close observation,
and held whether the failure to look constituted lack of
ordinary care on plaintiff's part was a jury question.
Here, the proof is defective not because of the
lack of ordinary care on plaintiff's part but because
there is no evidence that defendant was negligent.
The evidence of the description of the walkway at best shows
only a slight deviation or unevenness in the level of the floor.
A slight deviation in the level of a floor or walkway is not
usually in and of itself negligent construction.
Pilgreen v. Hanson,
89 Ga. App. 703, 709 (81 S.E.2d 18).
The description of the ramp from the evidence does not suggest
that the unevenness of the concrete floor constituted a trap
or pitfall. To the contrary, the evidence shows the rampway here
to be a commonplace thing provided by ordinarily prudent owners
and occupiers of land for their invitees to enter and exit.
SeeMitchell Motors, Inc. v. Tatum,
120 Ga. App. 689 (172 S.E.2d 187).
The defendant sustained its burden by showing the absence
of a genuine issue of material fact. It is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law. The judgment denying the motion for summary
judgment is reversed with direction that judgment be entered
for defendant.